Should I keep the 5D?
fullofpaint
Registered Users Posts: 103 Major grins
Wow, never thought I'd ask this! So my family surprised me with a 5dMk2 and a 24-105 F/4L kit for Christmas. My issue though is that while I shoot a lot of video as it's my major, I also do a lot of photography, mainly photojournalist/sports type stuff, a lot of it in low light (our gym is horribly lit). Right now I have a 70-200 2.8L and the 24-105 F.4L that came with the kit (was borrowing my sister's 16-35 2.8L but that goes back to her after the new year). I'm wondering though if I'd be better off trading it back in and getting a 7D and a 24-70 2.8L or the 17-55 2.8? I've been shooting with the school's 7D all semester and am moving up from my personal 40D so either one's a step up. I've never shot or even used a 5D before though, so I have no base to compare the two. As I see it if I go with the 5D over the 7D; my lenses are now shorter, my AF slower, I can fit more images on a card, and I think it;'s better in low light?
So keeping in mind, I plan to shoot a lot of video, and most of my photography is sports or photojournalism (think yearbook) what would you recommend, ditch the 5D for the 7D and another lens or keep it?
So keeping in mind, I plan to shoot a lot of video, and most of my photography is sports or photojournalism (think yearbook) what would you recommend, ditch the 5D for the 7D and another lens or keep it?
Canon 5DMk2, Canon 40D
16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, 24-105 4.0L
www.timkerigan.com
16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, 24-105 4.0L
www.timkerigan.com
0
Comments
What I'd suggest is that you keep the 5D2 and the 24-105mm f4L. Together with your 70-200mm f/2.8L you have a nice setup for most circumstances, and over time you can augment them with faster primes such as the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 (which are excellent and not very expensive), and perhaps more expensive primes such as the 24mm f/1.4L II and 135mm f/2L -- whatever focal length you find most useful.
Btw, lenses aren't "shorter" with a full-frame camera, but the same focal length gives a wider field of view due to the larger sensor, which I suppose is what you meant.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Link to my Smugmug site
Keep the 5DII, dump the 40D, get a 7D.. be happy.
Oh yeah, quite right... in theory. But when you look at the way many people use that superior 7D AF system you find they stay in a restricted comfortable safe margin.
Be that as it may I have not seen any 7D image that is superior to a 40D on the basis of AF alone, or caught with a 7D but lost with a 40D, and my eyes are open wide! Please go ahead!:D The 7D AF system is widely thought of as not entirely satisfactory and tricky. Canon have devoted unusual attention to trying to soothe the general user over it.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
My main body is 5DII and back up with old 5D. But I am keep to trade-in the old 5D for 7D especially for the birds and sport photos.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Ok, here you go. Three sand hill cranes at sunrise coming straight at you at a high rate of speed. Taken with the 7D.
If you don't think that's in focus, look at the feet and wing tips. I'd like to see you do that with a 40D. I can't, and it's not for lack of trying.
I shot that yesterday in Bosque del Apache where I was for three days shooting birds. The last time I was there, I shot with my 40D, and my keeper rate is much higher with the 7D.
So that is MY reality. Here's a professional review for you to read that goes into a lot of detail. http://canonfieldreviews.com/canon-7d-3-autofocus/
Ok, your turn. Prove that the 7D autofocus system isn't better. Ball's in your court, Neil.
Link to my Smugmug site
Ok, ok... I'll step up for a shoot out with ya! I ain't got no birds, but I got a car coming down the road at at least 60kph!
40D, @ 300mm, f5, 1/500sec, ISO200
I was hand-holding and panning this shot.
SOOC CR2 converted to 95% quality JPG in BibblePro5.2 with no nuthin nada adjustments eg sharpening. How's the small print on that license plate at 100% crop?!
PS There are some icky comments down the bottom of that review.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Link to my Smugmug site
Trading down to a 7D would be a mistake, both family wise and technically, in my opinion.
Mmm...
I thought we were discussing the respective AF performances, not subjects?
I was using AI Servo, and shooting in low burst mode. It is known that AF can be confused when there are competing high contrast areas close together in the frame. So here you have a fast moving pattern of high contrast areas where the camera is being hand-held and panned. For successful focus with AI Servo the selected focus point has to be locked onto the target of focus. It is known that using burst mode while moving the camera makes that difficult. But in this shot the SOOC sharpness on a quite small target at 300mm is very good.
In your shot I see 3 very high contrast objects which are not contiguous and which are isolated in a featureless area. What is the EXIF of your shot? Did you use a tripod? Were you moving the camera? What AF mode were you using?
I think the focus of your shot is extraordinarily good. But is that mainly because you were using a 7D? That's the question. As you point out you are far more experienced and knowledgeable than me. I am very doubtful that you could not have got as good a shot in these circumstances with the 40D. I don't have a bird shot to line up directly with it, that's just a fact. And I was really treating this whole thing as a bit of fun.
But my argument really boils down to this, that the full potential of a camera is only realised by an extraordinarily skillful photographer. If AF is the make or break then the OP has choices that are even better than the 7D!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
- 40d was an amazing camera for its release time. It has been superceded by the features and technology of subsequent models, but is still a good tool and can be had fairly cheaply on the used market.
- the 7d has unbelievable AF, high resolution (helpful for cropping), excellent IQ and ISO performance which is among the best of the crop factor cameras of any brand, and is amazingly customizable.
- the 5dII has some of the best low light performance of any camera on the market, a yummy FF sensor and stellar image quality.
I'm not quite sure why it is still necessary to run them head to head to try and pick a winner - they do different things and are, if anything, complementary rather than in competition. The 7d is, IMO, the best all-rounder - and still slightly less expensive, so if $ are a consideration it will move up the list by default - but if IQ is more important than speed and resolution then the 5dII, with its even better high ISO performance and FF goodness might be a better choice. If you can't afford either of those, the look for a used 40d and enjoy the great pictures it can take even if later models have more/better/newer features.
Isn't it great that we have choices?!
OP, if you need speed, great AF and the extra reach, then the 7d might well be a better tool your needs. The 5dII undoubtedly offers the finest IQ and ISO performance in the sub-1-series Canon lineup - and is, of course, FF - but if you're shooting sports that might not necessarily be your main priority.
If it were me, I'd probably keep the droolworthy gear you were given, and trade the 40d in for a 7d which will give you a superb 2-body lineup (with matched batteries!) that covers just about any situation, but ymmv. Nice "problem" to have, no matter how you look at it!!
When a bird is in powered flight, as opposed to a glide or hover, the motion is multi directional. In order to achieve lift the bird flaps the wings and a downward flap causes the bird's body to rise. As the wings pull up to reset the downward cycle the body falls, but the head also moves relative to the wings and body. The forward motion is also constantly changing depending upon the shape of the wings and the vertical component of the flight (i.e. if the bird is ascending the forward motion is somewhat slower than if the bird is wanting to move more or less level or in a dive.)
The problem for the AF of the camera is that it should only need to "concentrate" its purpose on the forward component of the flight but with the body and head in constant motion these serve to "distract" the AF by moving around in the scene and moving around with respect to each AF point. All of this motion makes it difficult for the AF section to discriminate and calculate for the intended subject.
In the car shot a moving vehicle is certainly a more predictable target for motion, unless it is moving in a random slalom motion as well, which this car does not appear to be doing. A complicator is any shiny part which acts as a reflextor. An AF sensor cannot tell between a subject and other reflections so cars with a large shiny grill or shiny bumpers can impose considerable distractive elements into the scene. In this case the reflectors don't seem too large so I don't think they presented much of a distraction in this case.
A Canon 7D has a considerably different type of AF section compared to the 40D. The 7D has 19 cross-type points with the center point a dual-cross type with extra sensitivity, compared to the 40D with 9 cross type points and the center point is high sensitivity.
The biggest advantage of the 7D AF is that it has 2 - Digic IV processors, compared to 1 - Digic III processor in the 40D. This allows the 7D to dedicate one image processor specifically to controlling AF functions, similar to the Canon 1D/1Ds series of cameras. This amounts to a considerable improvement for the 7D in general AF performance.
The 1D/1Ds still have an advantage over the 7D AF in that they use "Area-SIR" sensors with twice the sensitivity of cross-type sensors. This amounts to considerably faster AF performance in low light conditions.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
This was shot with a 500mm F4, wide open, on a tripod with a gimbal mount head. I was shooting in Servo, with AF point-expansion mode, and the other settings as suggested in this tutorial here. I suggest you read this, BTW. The number of controls available to fine-tune the 7D AF system are staggering, and none of those features even exist on the 40D. As to your argument that these features can only be used by an extraordinarily skilled photographer, I must disagree. These controls make less-skilled photographers like me more successful. Granted, you have to know how to use your tool, and I'm still working on that.
Link to my Smugmug site
You might want to trade in the 24-105 for the 24-70. You lose IS, but get that 2.8. But then again, the 24-105 was a gift...
Keep the 5DII and Lens, Trade off your 40 for the 7D and you will find your in a great position.
The 5DII will become your "Walk around" camera quickly enough and with the 24-105 f/4L you will get great FF yearbook shots.
Couple your 7D with the 70-200 2.8 and get all your sports shots. The 7D is a fantastic camera in "horrible" light. with sharp focus even at high subject speed.
Here is an original SOOC shot of a Dirt Track Modified under Marginal Light
at about 9:20 pm this past labor day.
used a sigma 70-200 2.8
Here is another image from the 7D sigma combo during the day
EOS Rebel XS Digital/ EOS 7D/ EOS 6D
50mm f1.8/ Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is/ 24-105 f4L
Canon speedlights and Alien Bees
At the end of the day, you have two quality cameras in the 5dII and the 40d. You've received a great, and expensive gift from your family. If your family is anything like mine...they probably would not understand why you want to sell their gift.
The 5DII is a great camera. The Canon shooters that I talk to that use this camera seem to not want to part with it. Of course most are not generally sports shooters but those that are, have a specific camera for this purpose which is not the 5d.
Which brings me to the 40d. Does this camera no longer do what you want? Sure its great to get new gear but do you really need it? I suggest you keep both bodies, until the 40d no longer does what you need. This way you save money until absolutely necessary to part with it.
Glass is different. The only thing I would consider changing up is the kit lens and getting the 24-70 L mentioned already. If you already have a lens in this category then go the 70-200 2.8L IS V1 route. I think you'll be happier in the long run .... but thats my opinion and you know what they say about opinions.
good luck
@divamum, I'm not at all anti the 7D, the thing itself, but I do think an antidote is necessary to marketing hype and the general tendency to believe it and see all new gear through dazzling spectacles. I advised the OP that what they now have and have been given - 5D2, 40D, 24-105, 70-200 f2.8 - this kit is superb and right in line with their particular range of need and interest, no compelling need to be getting into trading and expense. (BTW hope you have a great trip!
@ziggy, yes the technology of the 7D is different to the 40D, the specs read differently, sure. But isn't it true that a bunch of us, given access to a cache of freshly baked high tech bits and pieces, could cobble together a camera to make what we think is "ideal"? It's obviously one thing for specs to be impressive, and another to get from the said camera results which outclass all else. Why this very point is made by the reviewer that kdog links, namely that they got from the 7D shots which the 1DS3 failed at with its class-above-7D specs! It's my impression that there are more mixed feelings everywhere about the 7D's IQ and AF than any Canon dslr in the last 10 years! In lab comparisons, eg DxOMark, the differences between the 7D and the 40D are almost imperceptible. In the hands of shooters, well as we know the shooter's skills preempt any specs the gear has. In the case of the car shot the motions are highly complex including three basic vectors of the direction of the car - forward, to the right and up, added to that wind-and-road-caused deviations, and the movements of a hand-held and panning camera. I have already mentioned that I was also shooting in burst mode. While overall the car is a larger object than a bird at a similar distance the dots of the i in the small script on the licence plate might not be, and there are other competing high contrast edges contiguous and in close proximity over a steepish depth of 10 feet or so, a more contrast-complex and deeper target than a bird. Having said that I agree with you and think it's true that the birds kdog so expertly shot are potentially even more challenging. I also acknowledge that your understanding of the technical issues involved in real-world AF performance is deeper than mine, so I'm happy to defer to that if I am astray in what I think.
@kdog As I said your focus on the birds is precise, and that "your" is all the gear you used but most crucially you the photographer. To have shown what the 7D can do in your hands is not to show that the 40D can't do the same in the right hands. It is quite unknown whether the 7D, over the 40D, will make a significant difference to the type of shots the OP will likely take (no aspersions being cast on their skill!), and that was my point. That, and that shots from the 40D are likely to be cleaner, and certainly smaller file sizes, both relevant matters, if more than AF is being considered. Is losing a fine lens and $$ in a trade going to pay off? I thought it doubtful enough to advise against it, for the time being at least. That can be done later if the OP finds that they are limited by the 40D.
@tmelo Yes! As you can read from my comments above I concur with your sensible and conservative view. The proof of the worth to the OP of the 7D vs the 40D will be unique to the OP, to their unique circumstances and experience, and not derived from specs and theory.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
In general my 40D has been more than enough these past few years but it's low-light performance really killed me in some school events. I've been using a 7D this past semester and it's let me shoot some events that in the past were simply not shootable (concerts mainly). I do have to say, I'm not a fan of the 7D AF system, doesn't like to focus on what I want it to it.
Uploading some shots with the new 5Mk2 and the 24-105, with a 580EXII diffused and bounced off the ceiling mostly:
16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, 24-105 4.0L
www.timkerigan.com
50mm f1.4 would be a very useful fast lens where the 24-105 f4L wasn't fast enough.
The 5D2 will get you those concert shots!
Good luck with everything!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
On my 1DII there's just one AF setting: AF sensitivity
16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, 24-105 4.0L
www.timkerigan.com
The 7D can easily be set up so that focus recompose is not needed at all.
The 7D's AF system is significantly more demanding of its user, than the 40D, but once dialed in, is quite lovely. When I first got mine I didn't like it either, but after using it for a week in a pitching boat, I learned better how to use it. ServoAI is vastly better on the 7D than on the 40D as well.
The micro AF adjustments on the 7D are simply not even present on the 40D, as they were introduced on the 50D. Micro adjusting your long glass on a 7D can make a fairly dramatic improvement in the focusing accuracy.
I own and use both of these bodies, and both are capable of lovely images, but in my hands, the AF system of the 7D is head and shoulders better than the 40D. I had my 40D converted to IR, that is how much I like it.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Good comment. And it's to my point that a photographer has to have the skills to draw out the full potential of top cameras like the 40D/7D/5D*. These cameras have great depth in them, which will remain hidden while they are regarded foremostly as "easy fixes" to the success of a photographer, or superseded, just because of latest on-paper specs.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114